That is exactly the case. The provisions were meant to be flexible though - if those who signed decided to let those who do not sign - now or in the future - vote, then nothing stops the signatories from decididng to allow that. The reverse is also the case. As to your point about whether the MoU has any impact on non-signers, you are of course correct that it only binds those who are a party to it. Note that these are two separate questions though. On 08/05/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
I don't know what was the past correspondence, and I assume that this is a question that ultimately will end, for a change :<(, with the lawyers, but my understanding since the beginning was that the relationship between ICANN and EURALO, including the modus operandi of EURALO within ALAC, was going to be governed by the MoU.
As a matter of fact, re-reading the documents (AoA & MoU) I see that the election of EURALO representatives is covered in articles 1.2.5 and 5.4.1 of the MoU. I wonder how the MoU could extend legally to organizations like ALSes that do not sign the MoU. Of course, in the beginning we all thought of an MoU signed by EURALO with ICANN, and implicitely adopted by each ALS by joining the EURALO, but since we went the road of individual signatures for the MoU, by the same toke we must assume that the MoU takes force only for the ALSes who have signed it, not for the others. Who, if they do not want to sign, will remain unaffected by MoU obligations, but also unaffected by MoU advantages.
Where does this not make sense?
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Annette Muehlberg Sent: 08 May 2007 12:11 To: Nick Ashton-Hart ICANN Cc: EURALO Discussion Subject: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
Dear Nick,
You just wrote: "Whilst no impediment to participating in the work of the organisation is otherwise envisaged, it was strongly felt that only ALSes who are a party to the MoU with ICANN should cast votes in the upcoming election."
It is hard to understand the deeper significance of this sentence, especially for non-native english speakers.
After Lisbon I talked with you on the phone about the rights of ALSes who did not sign the MOU. You said, that there is no difference concerning voting rights in comparison to those who signed it.
After our talk you wrote on the list: "At the present time, NO LIMITATIONS ON NON-SIGNING ALSes HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR AGREED. Therefore, ALL ALSes IN EUROPE HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE EURALO. There has been some question about this raised in previous emails. I hope this reinforces that there is nothing to worry about."
Based on your mail, all accredited ALSes could expect to have voting rights without limitations. But according to your latest mail it seems that restrictions occured to those who did not sign and voting rights have been limited to MOU signers - except they would sign within the next two days. How can you expect that volunteer representatives of our ALSes can meet such short term deadlines?
So, if inbetween your two eMails (mentioned above) limitations on rights of ALSes have been introduced: what changes exactly were made? why? when? by whom?
Best Annette
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart